Cisco uRPF failures
tkapela at gmail.com
Sat Sep 6 12:20:34 CDT 2008
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> That's the surprising thing -- no scenario. Very basic configuration.
> Enabling uRPF and then hitting it with a few gig of non-routable packets
> consistently caused the sup module to stop talking on the console, and
What do you mean by 'non routable?'
What was the src/dst makeup of the test traffic?
> We also discovered problems related to uRPF and load balanced links, but
> those were difficult to reproduce in the lab and we couldn't affect their
> peering, so we had to disable uRPF and ignore so I don't have much details.
What version of code? Also, port-channel/lag or ECMP?
> quickly, but that turns out not to be the case. To this day I've never
I've never seen the issues you speak of, so it could be
Also, what sup were you testing?
> found a network operator using uRPF on Cisco gear.
> (note: network operator. it's probably fine for several-hundred-meg
> enterprise sites)
Forgive me, but what does bits/sec have to do with anything?
More information about the NANOG